H. Baruah, J.

1. Heard Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Saihmingliana Sailo learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1. None appears for and on behalf of respondent No. 2.

2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 16.9.2008 passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl (for short the 'Tribunal') in MAC Case No. 42 of 2007. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the appellant has challenged the legality and correctness of the award mainly on two counts : (1) that the income as deposed and taken by the tribunal cannot form the basis for calculation of the award since the Village Council President (for short 'VCP') is not competent authority to issue income certificate and (2) that the percentage of disability as calculated by the doctor and taken by the tribunal cannot also form the basis for the calculation of the award in view of non examination of doctor, who issued the medical certificate.

3. In the above two counts, Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned Counsel for the appellant relied the ratio of the following cases:

(1) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kawllian Thanga and Anr. reported in 2007 (3) GLT 444.

(2) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chandreswar Thakur and Ors. reported in 2001 (1) GLT 393.

In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kawllian Thanga and Anr. (supra) this Court held that a VCP is not a competent authority to issue a certificate of income. The certificate so issued and accepted by the tribunal does not disclose the source of income of the claimant. This Court while delivering the judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kawllian Thanga and Anr. (supra) in the above circumstances also held that in absence of the proof of income certificate, notional income of the claimant is to be considered. For better appreciation paragraph 5 of the judgment New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kawllian Thanga and Anr. is reproduced below:

5. Mr. George Raju, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the method of calculation adopted by the learned tribunal is wrong and arbitrary in as much as there is absolutely no proof on record to support that the deceased was earning Rs. 40,000/- annually, as held by the learned tribunal. The only documentary evidence in support of the claim is a certificate issued by the President of the Village Council marked Exhibit C- 4, which does not disclose the source of income or the nature of occupation of the deceased. Even the claimant, the elder brother of the deceased, in his deposition has stated nothing as to how the deceased was earning Rs. 40,000/- annually or to what extent he was dependent on him. Though learned Counsel for the claimant/respondent strongly opposed this submission by submitting that the certificate being admitted without objection, cannot be called in question at the appellate stage, I do not find any force in the same. Even after a document is admitted in evidence it remains to be appreciated with regard to its evidentiary value. It is difficult for any person to obtain such a certificate from a Village Council and by merely producing such a certificate the burden of proof, on the part of the claimant does not stand discharged. I am of the considered view that such a certificate alone without any supportive evidence that a village council is competent to issue income certificate cannot be the basis for taking a view that the deceased was earning Rs. 40,000/- annually. In the absence of any such evidence regarding income, the notional income provided in the second schedule of the Act being Rs. 15,000/- annually has to be accepted. Thus, the multiplier chosen correctly being 17, the amount of compensation should have been Rs. 15,000 x 17 = Rs. 2,55,000/-. From this amount one third has to be deducted being personnel expenses of the deceased and thus the net amount would come to Rs. 1,70,000/- (Rupees one lac seventy thousand) only.

Before